Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Rafale Proves Itself
SYSOP    8/7/2011 7:59:23 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54   NEXT
Eliendhal       8/31/2011 1:55:24 PM
Reactive said :
"I disagree entirely - WRT air superiority, it is never a niche that Rafale will fill adequately when up against aircraft with more powerful sensors and kinematic capabilities - Rafale will never be a strong BVR airframe"
 
and :
"But it's a multirole platform which is far less capable (survivable) when used as an air-to-air platform"
 
While you don 't give name , I guess that you are comparing Rafale with the Eurofighter . You seem to believe that the later offers an edge over the former in BVR combat , I disagree and the results of the various BVR exercises in between the two also disagree .
Eurofighter 's dash speed is a little bit better (Mach 2 versus mach 1.8) but no one is going to fight at such speed for long . Using 700kg of fuel to go from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.8 to fire missiles with a better velocity is risky and can be counter productive if the fight last . Both will try to launch at Mach 1.2~1.4 FLT300+ .
Service ceiling are the same , just under 17.000m . Acceleration and climb rate favor the Eurofighter but not by much .
 
Both have good radars , better range for the Captor , faster scanning/tracking and more discret for the RBE2 . RCS favors Rafale , ELINT and ECMs also favor Rafale at long range , towed decoys favor the Eurofighter at medium to close range . BVR missiles are on the par (Mica vs Amraam --> not the latest) or Meteor for both fighters .
I can 't see where the Eurofighter has an edge with a big enough margin to make a difference . Can you ?
At the contrary , I see Rafale having a small edge BVR . It is of course debatable and I invite you to debate if you wish .
 
Regarding the Indian Press , I agree that we should take everything with a pinch of salt . Depending on what and who you read , things can go both ways . 
 
You said : 
"they also have a demonstrably uncertain upgrade schedule with the Rafale"
 
Please , demonstrate it because AFAIK , the upgrade schedule is known up to the MLU 2025 . I am not totaly sure but the ugrades seems to be :
-GaN modules instead of AsGa for Spectra
-GaN modules for the radar 
-GaN conformal arrays
-jamming capabilities in the main radar
-DIRCM
-SNECMA M88-4E
A French poster may help us here . Any taker ?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       8/31/2011 4:31:42 PM
While you don 't give name , I guess that you are comparing Rafale with the Eurofighter . You seem to believe that the later offers an edge over the former in BVR combat , I disagree and the results of the various BVR exercises in between the two also disagree .
 
 There have been NONE of which the data has been published. There was a lot of french propoganda that has been rubbished from all sides. WVR Rafale is very capable, everyone has acknowledged this.
 
Eurofighter 's dash speed is a little bit better (Mach 2 versus mach 1.8) but no one is going to fight at such speed for long . Using 700kg of fuel to go from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.8 to fire missiles with a better velocity is risky and can be counter productive if the fight last . Both will try to launch at Mach 1.2~1.4 FLT300+ .
 
I think you need to look at the many Rafale threads here, MICA is a far shorter-ranged missile than AMRAAM is, and it has been demonstrated time and time again - EF has a higher service ceiling, 65K feet and sustained supercruise capability, ask a pilot to tell you why that matters in BVR combat, (it means energy advantage and a choice of where and when to engage and disengage and maintain a distance advantage - You know absolutely nothing (admit it) about the respective EW components and their relative effectiveness against enemy RH missiles . Rafale fanboys can't accept their plane is deficient in any respect, even when prospective vendors have plainly stated that the Radar is inadequate and it has failed (despite being multirole and cheaper than the EF to win ANY sales internationally... bottom line, if it could do half of what is commonly claimed it would be in demand, even with full TOT, discounts, a saucy night with Carla Bruni, and all manner of other chicanery it has still been rejected by every nation.
 
 
Service ceiling are the same , just under 17.000m . Acceleration and climb rate favor the Eurofighter but not by much .
 
Wrong on both counts.
 
Both have good radars , better range for the Captor , faster scanning/tracking and more discret for the RBE2 . RCS favors Rafale , ELINT and ECMs also favor Rafale at long range , towed decoys favor the Eurofighter at medium to close range . BVR missiles are on the par
 
No they are not, please refer to previous threads - MICA is WVR/BVR missile with a limited range (don't cite the mickey mouse figures on wikipedia), it has a different (and reduced) fuel mix than AMRAAM that is midway between WVR and BVR. Not that it is relevant as both platforms will use METEOR.
 
(Mica vs Amraam --> not the latest) or Meteor for both fighters .
 
Better range, larger diameter, more upgrade potential, again, you should understand why diameter is so important for AESA arrays and what that means for beam-steering and angular resolution.

I can 't see where the Eurofighter has an edge with a big enough margin to make a difference . Can you ?
 
On every level - yes, more powerful engines, sustained supercruise, bigger, more powerful radar (and a more powerful future AESA array), passive thermal imaging, better service ceiling, better dash speed, better acceleration, optimisation for high altitude agility, better BVR missile (AMRAAM) and towed decoy (offboard jamming) capability, semi-recessed hardpoints... Apart from that no, nothing.. lol

At the contrary , I see Rafale having a small edge BVR . It is of course debatable and I invite you to debate if you wish .

Yes but you're a Rafale fan, whether or not you care to admit it.
 
Regarding the Indian Press , I agree that we should take everything with a pinch of salt . Depending on what and who you read , things can go both ways . 
We agree on that at least. ..
 
 
Quote    Reply

Eliendhal       8/31/2011 5:34:20 PM
It seems that we disagree on many accounts ...
You said : 
"There have been NONE of which the data has been published. There was a lot of french propoganda that has been rubbished"
 
Ok , let 's forget the actual 12-1 score in favor of Rafale since you say it 's propaganda .
"MICA is a far shorter-ranged missile than AMRAAM "
 
It depends which Amraam you are talking about . Which one is used on the Eurofighter ? Range ? Check .  Mica has killed target at 60km .
"Yes but you're a Rafale fan"
 
Well , it seems that you are a Eurofighter fan so that puts us on equal ground I guess .
Regarding the max ceiling , the best data I 've got say 19.000m for the Eurofighter , 18.000+ for the Rafale . You have a point .
 
"and sustained supercruise capability"
No one but the F-22 is going to use supercruise in a meaningfull manner . Eurofighter can 't use it 99% of the time .
Btw , Rafale has been supercruising with 4 Micas and a central fuel tank but I don 't see it as important .
 
"You know absolutely nothing (admit it) about the respective EW components and their relative effectiveness against enemy RH missiles "
At the contrary , this is my field but please , let 's not go there unless you really want to . In case you also know a lot on EW warfare , you can understand that it is sensitive and we shall not disclose anything not on the public domain .
It is enough to say that the ECM suites are tailored for each aircraft and they are different , they use different approach to reach the same goal . One approach is better at long range while the other is better at short range . I don 't think we can go further than that without going down to components and technicals . Let 's avoid that , ok ?
 
"Rafale fanboys can't accept their plane is deficient in any respect "
 
The same can be said of every fan , whatever the aircraft is . Personaly ,  I warn the Eurofighter fans as they tend to invent stuff  'cause they know it is inferior to Rafale , so they use tricks and semantic to keep their heads out of the water . It is also interesting to see that the Eurofighter Team is using the same tactics .
 
"you should understand why diameter is so important for AESA arrays and what that means for beam-steering and angular resolution."
 
I perfectly understand the shortcomings of a smaller array , thank you . I also understand how the shortcomings can be dealt with . Now , I would like someone to tell me why the French are going for AESA cheek arrays if it is not to avoid to be flanked ?
Also , a radar range of 160-180km is plenty enough to get a clear picture ahead and plenty enough to use ramjet missiles like Meteor .
Reactive , you talk about agility at high Mach , what for ? Both aircraft can turn tight at high speed , tight enough to escape anyway . 
 
 
Quote    Reply

bettyford       8/31/2011 10:25:12 PM
LOL every time either plane comes up you people come out of the woodwork.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       9/1/2011 2:51:18 AM
You aren't an EW expert, this is a lie, and like FS (who you clearly are) you make up lies to bolster non-existent expertise..
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       9/1/2011 3:00:55 AM
Regarding the max ceiling , the best data I 've got say 19.000m for the Eurofighter , 18.000+ for the Rafale . You have a point .
 
"and sustained supercruise capability"
No one but the F-22 is going to use supercruise in a meaningfull manner . Eurofighter can 't use it 99% of the time .
Btw , Rafale has been supercruising with 4 Micas and a central fuel tank but I don 't see it as important .
 
If you understood half as much as you pretend you'd realise that an aircraft is optimised either for high altitude performance (F22/Eurofighter) or low-mid altitude kinematic performance (strike aircraft like Rafale) that's just a basic response to our atmospheric density, EF was designed to be agile and fast at the high altitudes it is intended to operate in (it was never intended as a strike aircraft) and simply by looking at the shaping of the respective planes that should be evident - WRT supercruise, it is used routinely on the EF and forms a key part of the mid-high altitude engagement envelope, if you don't understand what that means in terms of BVR engagements then you have no place commenting on it.
 
R
 
Quote    Reply

Eliendhal       9/1/2011 7:00:59 PM
I have to admit that the Eurofighter is a better flyer than the Rafale at high altitude . As you say , it has been build for .
It 's a ferrari and it climbs like a home sick angel . Wrt supercruise , I take your words but with what load ?
 
Not being picky but I know that it is said it can supercruise at Mach 1.5 clean and it has been said that Typhoon pilots have stated that Mach 1.3 is attainable in combat configuration with external stores (citation needed) . What stores ?
I believe what they say but ...
We know that the Rafale can supercruise at Mach 1.2 with 4 Micas and a central 1000l fuel tank or that it can supercruise at Mach 1.4 with 6 Micas and no external fuel tanks . At least , we know with what stores .
Some people say that the Eurofighter can do better than that and I do believe them since it has more thrust and good aerodynamics , but where is the proof ?
What would impress me is to know that it can supercruise at Mach 1.4 with 4 BVRAAMs , 2 SRAAMs and two 1000l fuel tanks . Anything less than that and we are in Rafale territory .
 
I mean , how long have we heard "Rafale is underpowered" ? Years . In fact , when I read this : 
"Transit to Libya is flown at 50% power setting, which translates to Mach 0.9 cruise speed even with six AASM bombs and two large underwing drop tanks."
ht*p://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/125860/rafale-in-combat%3A-%E2%80%9Cwar-for-dummies%E2%80%9D.html
 
i know that it has good engines and excellent aerodynamics . They forgot to add 2 IR Micas wingtips . This is a 6600kg external load for a speed of Mach 0.9 , 50% power setting . Not bad , isn 't it ?
I wish that we had more numbers available regarding the Eurofighter , can someone help ?
 
Reactive , you wrote : 
"Yes forget it a) because it is probably a lie (was disputed) b) because those exercises were WVR and c) because you don't know what the exercise conditions were."
 
a) The RAF pilots were "shocked" , like against the Pakistani F-16s . I can come back on this later and give my opinion on the matter .
b) No , they were BVR (at least most of them , 6 of them in fact)
c) we know enough to have an idea on how it happened . Do you have an idea ?
 
Reactive , you also said : 
"You aren't an EW expert, this is a lie, and like FS (who you clearly are)"
 
You are right , I am certainly not an expert in EW but it is somehow my field and my personal knowledge on the subject is
good . I don 't have any scientific background if it 's what you ask . I told you 3 times already that I am not french stratege , you are talking to a different person and that I can swear on my Father 's grave .
What the heck , believe what you want .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Eliendhal       9/1/2011 7:35:09 PM
I apologize for posting twice in a row but I forget something .
 
Nowadays , I believe we can all agree that air warfare is more and more reliant on various technologies like stealth and electronics . It becomes more and more difficult to put a BVR missile on target which is call a "kill" .
Or the fighter has such a small RCS that the missile will have a hard time to lock on before it 's too late , or the fighter has electronics to fool the missile or even better , it has both stealth and electronics . Aircraft like the F-22 is extremely hard to kill , its survivability is second to none .
 
So , is having an airframe built for speed and agility at high altitude still give an edge ? Personaly , I think so .
But to what extent ? Is it such a big edge ? There , I don 't think so . It is indeed very nice and sometimes crucial to begins the fight with an altitude and speed advantage for the reasons we already know . But still , the missiles have to hit the target(s) .
 
Basicaly , we are back to tthe old fight : radar vs ECM vs ECCM vs missile seaker .
If I may say , I would rather sit in a slow invisible brick than in a visible supercruiser . And you ?
All of this to say that if we compare the Eurofighter with the Rafale in BVR combat , we should better look at the overall RCS and electronics on both fighters .
That would make more sense in my view .
 
Quote    Reply

MK    @Eliendhal   9/2/2011 11:08:02 AM
Ok , let 's forget the actual 12-1 score in favor of Rafale since you say it 's propaganda .
 
The Rafale scored 9:1 at Solenzara which was WVR only and 7:1 in the UAE which was BVR. The later saw the Rafale being restricted to simulate the R-27ER missile which is a quite long ranging one, but with SAHR guidance only. It has been confirmed by Col. Grandclaudon that the engagements happened during the continuous training phase prior the ATLC core exercise and that they were flying against young Typhoon pilots still growing on that aircraft. It has also been confirmed that these weren't the only encounters and that similar results occurred the other way round. I don't think that we can draw to many conclusions from this exercise. Close in at low to medium altitudes the Rafale can prevail due to its superior low speed manoeuvrability, higher up the Typhoon may have the better chances due to better specific excess thrust. The later was commented by a German pilot who won two out of two WVR encounters against the Rafale.
 
It depends which Amraam you are talking about . Which one is used on the Eurofighter ? Range ? Check .  Mica has killed target at 60km .
 
The MICA might be able to rival the older AIM-120A-C4, but the C5 offers a superior range performance and is actually the most sophisticated variant integrated on the Typhoon. 
Well , it seems that you are a Eurofighter fan so that puts us on equal ground I guess .
Regarding the max ceiling , the best data I 've got say 19.000m for the Eurofighter , 18.000+ for the Rafale . You have a point .
 
19812 m (65000 ft) to be exactly. 
 
At the contrary , this is my field but please , let 's not go there unless you really want to . In case you also know a lot on EW warfare , you can understand that it is sensitive and we shall not disclose anything not on the public domain .
It is enough to say that the ECM suites are tailored for each aircraft and they are different , they use different approach to reach the same goal . One approach is better at long range while the other is better at short range . I don 't think we can go further than that without going down to components and technicals . Let 's avoid that , ok ?
 
A serious comparison would require data which are classified and this we aren't able to talk about it anyway. We don't know much about the jamming techniques or even output power of the respective ECM systems, what we know is that both employ DRFMs and AESA antennas. 
 
The same can be said of every fan , whatever the aircraft is . Personaly ,  I warn the Eurofighter fans as they tend to invent stuff  'cause they know it is inferior to Rafale , so they use tricks and semantic to keep their heads out of the water . It is also interesting to see that the Eurofighter Team is using the same tactics .
 
Fanboys are present on all sides and there are always those who are pure fanatics and those who are more moderate. 
 
I perfectly understand the shortcomings of a smaller array , thank you . I also understand how the shortcomings can be dealt with . Now , I would like someone to tell me why the French are going for AESA cheek arrays if it is not to avoid to be flanked ?
 
What else can they do to increase the coverage spare cheek arrays? And this far the cheek arrays are just a proposed option not a committed and funded upgrade. 
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Eliendhal       9/2/2011 1:43:56 PM
MK , wrt the score I stand corrected .
The rest of your post is appreciated , thanks for your input .
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics